Arguments Yard

Remember when this guy was the hunting joke?

guess I never will.

John Kerry vows to filibuster Alito. Well, to use his own words, "bring it on!"

Can the right really get this lucky? Would the liberals really filibuster a "well qualified" nominee right before the big State of the Union address?

Today's WashPost says Democratic heavyweights hope that, "extended debate may draw more Americans' attention to Alito's conservative stands on abortion, civil rights, presidential powers and other matters."

For a change, I find myself agreeing with Sen. Kennedy. I too hope that more Americans take note of Alito's positions, since his positions reflect the positions of most Americans, and since most Americans approve of his nomination.

Maybe some of those who are on the fence in "purple" states will realize they need to move to the right, toward conservatives who have ideas and are doing things and away from liberals who plan to do nothing.

many of us hope Stephen Harper will make Canada a more active partner in the War on Terror.

It could hardly be less active, as this virtually blank page from the Toronto Globe and Mail makes clear:

a Canadian himself, on the Canadian elections:

"As the Liberals warned Canadians - or, rather, shrieked at them - Stephen Harper will take away 'a woman's right to choose'! The unwanted boys you'll be forced to have will grow up to be Bush cannon fodder in Iraq, and the unwanted girls will be sold as white slaves for Halliburton corporate cocktail parties round the pool at Dick Cheney's ranch.

"Well, that's certainly why I voted Conservative, but it's hard to believe many of my fellow Canadians (and even my fellow Quebecers) felt the same way."

Sen. Schumer is still to speak (filibuster? bluster?). But it's a pretty safe bet he'll follow his fellow Dems on the Judiciary Committee in voting against Alito.

Oh, well.

As we say in the NCAA tourney, "survive and advance." A 10-8 vote is the same as 18-0. He heads on to the full Senate.

The reason the Administration didn't want to go through FISA courts is that these courts (as I understand it) is that the court had, since September 11, started refusing to grant warrents for some calls. So the Administration went ahead and monitored the calls without asking the court for permission.

New policy at work, that we're supposed to be careful about what we blog. So I've been maintaining radio silence.

But the Ford story makes me want to log in again.

So Ford is going to lay off 30,000 people. Why? Because they make lousy cars that people don't want to buy.

I've got the same problem with GM. All my life, my family's bought GMs, but the Chevy I've got now is a lemon. I'll never buy a GM again.

The lesson is to forget marketing -- make a product people want to buy, and it'll sell itself. Make a lousy product and you'll eventually go out of business.

Also, think of this: The price of everything goes down. The computer I'm typing this on is probably worth $400, but 10 years ago a computer with this much power would have cost $4,000.

The price of computers has gone down. Why are cars so expensive? How come the price of cars has doubled (or whatever the amount is) while the components in the cars have, assumedly, become less expensive.

I'm asking this as a serious question. I ran it by Rich and another conservative friend a few weeks ago, so I'll throw it also out to Rich's conservative readers here. It's related to the wiretap controversy. I was traveling in December, so I'm not sure if I just missed my answer.

My understanding is that FISA courts not only can issue warrants quickly, but they can actually issue warrants retroactively, for up to 72 hours. So what I want to know is why the admin didn't use the 72 hour provision to get warrants for the wiretaps it deemed too urgent for an advance warrant.

I don't know if this is a procedural aspect of the FISA warrants or what, but I'm really trying to get an answer on this, even if it's just the official talking point.

see you on the 27th.

leaving CNN.

Hope he takes his teeth over to FOX.

having children is certainly expensive.

But it's well worth it.

Today, CNN told a sad story about couples who choose not to have children. One woman said, "You can turn the tables and say, gosh, isn't it selfish that you've had children that you expect to take care of you when you're old? Isn't [it] selfish that you want a replica of yourself?"

I had children so I could raise them in love, not to have replicas of myself. Still, if that's her attitude, maybe the world is better off without the children she'd bring into it...

Media bias. We all know it exists. But can anyone prove it?

UCLA thinks it has.